Sunday, January 1, 2012

Happy New Year!

First, I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year. Is it just me or did you feel like playing the violin or busting out laughing when the Republican nominee candidates try to convince folks that they come from humble backgrounds and that they're concerned about people suffering?

Excuse me, but which one of theses candidates has ever been evicted from their homes due to foreclosures? Have any of them ever had a love one die because they were denied health care? Which one of them had their job shipped overseas? Have they ever had to take a reduction in pay in order to keep their job? Or have they ever had to dig out of garbage cans for bottles and cans to sale in order to eat or buy basic mandatory toiletries to supplement an already low income? Has any of them ever lived in a homeless shelter or slept under an underpass? Stood in a soup line? Lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Come on let's be real, none of them know what real suffering is because none of their testimonies of humble beginnings match the average middleclass or poor American. That's why their stories sound so phony and out of touch with real Americans.

18 comments:

Happy New Year, Granny. The only consolation I have is this: Only one of these Republican candidates is going to make it to the finish line.

All the rest will be losers--and maybe, as loser, in a small measure, come to know what it's like to be at the bottom looking up--along with those who have lost their job, or failed in their bid to be hired.

Happy New Year to you too Diaspora. Out of all of them, Ron Paul is the most dangersous one. What gets me is that all of them talk about less government, but yet they're running for a government position. That's rich seeing how they want to add thousands of government workers to the unemployment lines, which would happen if they get to demolish departments in the government.

I've been trying to take it easy and get ready for the future battle come election time.

Happy New Year to you Granny! Yes I bust out laughing when I see the republicans playing the Suckers for Suckers. They know they can count on them to hate President Obama more than they love themselves or their country.

@Granny: "Ron Paul is the most dangersous one. What gets me is that all of them talk about less government."

Granny, without a large, effective government, capitalism will run amuck, destroying everything in its wake--and do so without conscience or consideration for the environment.

Even with the government providing oversight, a project like the Keystone Pipeline appears to be a go, prepared to do all kind of damage to our environment as it makes those in the oil industry filthy rich.

I understand that a majority of Canadians are opposed to it as well, but are as helpless as we are in stopping it.

Despite Ron Paul's hands-off of the economy approach, and his support of isolationism, other Republicans are focusing on social issues, such as abortion, and the destruction of Planned Parenthood, where women have turned, for years, for life-saving screenings.

These Republicans are all autocrats, and they won't be satisfied until they're running this country without challenge--from sea to shining sea, and the whole of Washington D.C.

Which one of these candidates has never held a job in the private sector? Which one will not, as is customary, release any of his academic records? Which one will not divulge how his education was financed? Which one had a convicted racketeer help buy him his mansion? Which one took a huge advance for writing his autobiography, spent it all (inlcuding some on a three month vacation in Bali), and never delivered a book? Which one then got a second advance and then got a convicted terrorist to write his autobiography for him (uncredited)? Which one took a $6 million royalty payment the week before he was sworn in as senator? Which one has an illegal alien Aunt living on welfare in public housing whom he has never given a dime to? Which one's wife spent $10 million in public money on vacations last year and $4 million for a Christmas vacation this year?

More importantly, which one's reckless spending and anti-business agenda has resulted in the first lowering of the nation's credit rating in it's history?

Barry Soetoro, aka Barak Obama, that's who.

Anybody but Obama.

Draft Hillary if it has to be a democrat for you, but this guy is destroying the country.

@Tony Rezko: You sir, are a hater, an Obama-hater specifically. As much as I abhorred Bush's policies, I never hated him, nor did I attack him with the same vitriol that's implied in your words, and those of your ilk.

You Republicans are a breed apart when it comes to hating liberals.

"Draft Hillary if it has to be a democrat for you, but this guy is destroying the country."

It certainly won't be a Republican!

But that aside: You vote for whomever you choose, and I'll do the same. I won't tell you who to "draft," and I sure as hell not going to have you tell me who to "draft."

More autocratic Republican hubris, more interested in a Republican takeover of the government--using gerrymandering and voter suppression--than our venerable democratic process.

"Anybody but Obama."

Since you're in the advice giving mode, let me counter with some of my on. Anybody but Gingrich (with his checkered congressional history), Ron Paul (and his racist history), Rick Santorum (and his hatred of gays), Michele Bachmann (and her cure the gays history), Mitt Romney (and his questionable business practices at Bain & Company) and Rick Perry (and his pay to play arrangements in Texas politics)

"More importantly, which one's reckless spending and anti-business agenda has resulted in the first lowering of the nation's credit rating in it's history?"

Facts don't matter to you Republicanites, do they? Why resort to facts when propaganda advances your agenda so well.

"The political brinkmanship [Brinkmanship? Wasn't it the threat of Republicans, days leading up to the debt-ceiling deadline, to shut down government, if they didn't get their way?] highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,and less predictable than what we previously believed."

"Which one of these candidates has never held a job in the private sector?"

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever held a job in the "private sector."

As for President Obama, here's his private sector work history before becoming president:

— A stint in 1983-84 as a research assistant at Business International Corp. in New York City, where he helped write a newsletter.

— Working from 1985 to 1988 as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project in Chicago;

— Working from 1993 to 2004 as an associate, and then a partner, at the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where his work included employment-discrimination and voting-rights cases. The job also overlapped with his time in the Illinois Legislature.

Were I to spend the time, I suspect I could come up with a rather damning résumé for all previous presidents, and presidential candidates, including both Bush's, with one G.W. Bush perhaps going AWOL while serving in the National Guard.

Selective memories: President Obama inherited a recession from George W. Bush (and a hemorrhaging of jobs), two wars not paid for (for which we borrowed heavily from China, and the Saudis to finance [which amounted to almost a trillion dollars]), a bailout of Wall Street to the tune of almost a trillion dollars, tax cuts that were never paid for, a budget surplus that was squandered, and an image abroad that cranked out jihadist by the thousands.

No, the country was already destroyed when Obama took office. You can thank G.W. Bush, and your fellow Republicans for that, not Democrats as is your wont.

A student job as research assistant, a community organizer, and a fake law firm job as 'private sector' job experience?

LMAO!!!!!

Obama inherited a recession left by Bush, but caused by the democrat housing bubble courtesy of the CRA and the democrat private slush fund known as Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.

Instead of getting things in fiscal order first, he squanders an easy opportunity left by his incompetent predecessor and instead blows a couple of trillion dollars implementing every liberal wish item from the 80's.

What an idiot. He could have been on Mount Rushmore, instead he is Jimmy Carter squared.

He was never qualified to be president, and his performance proves he never should have been given the chance.

Instead of bringing the country together, he has worsened race relations by using Holder to implement his anti-white polices. During the two years his party controlled both houses of Congress, he shut Republicans out of the room in a way that had never been done before. His party rammed through Obamacare without a single Republican vote; no major legislation had ever been passed unilaterally by one party in the nation's history. He has called Republicans "enemies" that need to be "punished" while speaking to supporters. He lies and demagogues constantly. He has divided this country intentionally because he knows that's the only way to hold power. The man is a poison that needs to be expunged.

Tony Rezko said..."A student job as research assistant, a community organizer, and a fake law firm job as 'private sector' job experience?

LMAO!!!!!"

Working for McDonald's, as a hamburger slinger, would have qualified as a "private sector" job, and put the lie to your ridiculous claim: "[Obama] has never held a job in the private sector?"

So what do you do? Rather than admit you overreached, and misspoke, you discount Obama's private sector experience, making you look silly for the effort.

I suspect that you indulge often in "LMAO!!!!!" which explains why you're deficient in other areas. I suggest that you do less of it, and hold on to what you can--it will improve your physical appearance and your command of the facts.

"Obama inherited a recession left by Bush, but caused by the democrat housing bubble courtesy of the CRA and the democrat private slush fund known as Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae."

You mean the same folk that hired Newty Gingrich as a historian, and paid him a million and change?

It seems that that "slush fund" slushed a lot of that "democrat private slush fund" in the direction of Republicans as well.

"Obama inherited a recession left by Bush, but caused by the democrat housing bubble courtesy of the CRA and the democrat private slush fund known as Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae."

You've got to stop swilling down that propaganda, it's hard on the constitution and it's fattening.

Factcheck disagrees with your assessment, and your conclusion. Guess whose word I'm going to take on this matter? Check it out:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

"Instead of getting things in fiscal order first, he squanders an easy opportunity left by his incompetent predecessor and instead blows a couple of trillion dollars implementing every liberal wish item from the 80's."

What a crock of indigestible rock!

The stimulus save or created jobs (Of course, your propagandists would say otherwise), and was a response to the bad fiscal housekeeping of G.W. Bush and a Republican congress.

Almost every move by the Obama administration was designed to clean up the mess left by conservatives (the stimulus being the prime example), who were only interested in conserving their jobs by scaring Americans half to death that they were going to die in their sleep at the hands of Islamist terrorist, and that they (Republicans) were the only one who could protect them.

Not only did Republican governors ask for, and receive, stimulus money, they staged ribbon-cutting ceremonies, and passed the stimulus money off as their own.

"What an idiot. He could have been on Mount Rushmore, instead he is Jimmy Carter squared."

Obama-hating suits you, as well as your penchant for hyperbole. If we see another face chiseled into Mount Rushmore, it won't be Ronald Reagan's, that supposed paragon of conservative principles, who raised taxes 11 times, but the face of Obama, the president who saved this nation from the clutches of Republicanism, and the failed conservative policies that brought this nation to its economic knees under George W. Bush.

"He was never qualified to be president, and his performance proves he never should have been given the chance."

Bush was qualified? The fools now vying to be the Republican candidate for president are qualified?

Rubbish!

Give me a thousand Obamas, for every one Republican believing that they can run this country on a wish and a prayer--evangelical zeal, and a destruction of the federal government.

"Instead of bringing the country together, he has worsened race relations by using Holder to implement his anti-white polices."

Do you ever re-read what you've written? Your statement is utter nonsense, made by a desperate man with a desperate and tenuous hold on reality.

Tell me more about these "anti-white policies" that Holder has implemented?

Holder should have sent a few white men to jail for the financial debacle they caused, but even that he resisted. So, tell me about those Holder "anti-white policies" that're keeping you up nights?

You really have to stay away from those extreme, right-wing conspiracy sites, they're messing with your mind, and distorting your reality.

"During the two years his party controlled both houses of Congress, he shut Republicans out of the room in a way that had never been done before."

Oh, give me a break! Stop your whining! We both know: Republicans shut themselves out with one obstruction after the other, chalking up more filibusters against Democrat-sponsored legislation in the Senate than any congress in history.

"His party rammed through Obamacare without a single Republican vote; no major legislation had ever been passed unilaterally by one party in the nation's history."

You suggest a certain illegality to the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act.

I don't care if it was "rammed through," or it sailed through, it was the right move for this nation, which has long spent more on health care than it actually received.

It just offer up more proof just how heartless, cold, and mean-spirited those in the Republican party are, that they believe that health care is only for those who can afford it, denying almost 40 million Americans health care, while subjecting those who can afford health insurance to continually rising premiums, disqualification because of preexisting conditions, and to annual and life-time health-provision ceilings.

Attaching health care to a profit model is the surest way to maximize profit at the expense of health care.

"He has called Republicans "enemies" that need to be "punished" while speaking to supporters."

Well, good. I think Republicans should be "punished" too.

Republicans are the enemy of the people, more intent on recapturing the congress and the White House, than creating jobs, more intent on dismantlement Planned Parenthood, than kick-starting the economy, more interested in suppressing voter turnout, than expanding the franchise, more interested in restricting the rights of women over their bodies, than giving to them the individual freedom that Republicans say is the cornerstone of their conservative philosophy.

"He lies and demagogues constantly."

Pretty much as you've done here, as well as those to whom you listen, and who hold your mind captive, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and every other Republican talking head to whom you listen, regardless of venue.

As you blacken Obama's pot, you blacken your own. Turn down the heat, or turn off the fire, the water has boiled out, and your pot isn't recognizable as one.

"He has divided this country intentionally because he knows that's the only way to hold power. The man is a poison that needs to be expunged."

More hyperbolic nonsense! If you truly believe what you've written, then you really should seek counseling, or professional intervention. As the Brits might say, "I believe you just might be mental."

The only "poison" that's spewing here is from you. Your veiled threat, "expunged," might be taken seriously by the Secret Service.

In the future, I suggest that you get a grip, get some help, and watch what you say about the president.

You wouldn't want to spend the remainder of your days in Gitmo, now that American citizens accused of terrorism can be arrested and held indefinitely without a trial. Your party wanted this provision, and now they have it.

"You wouldn't want to spend the remainder of your days in Gitmo, now that American citizens accused of terrorism can be arrested and held indefinitely without a trial. Your party wanted this provision, and now they have it."

Bullshit. That is Obama's doing. He has absolutely shredded the constitution, but you don't care because he's your guy. You are a dupe, a shill for a bald-faced fascist whose days as president are numbered.

Morons parotting talking points should be called what they are. You really ARE a moron

Tony Rezko said..."Bullshit. That is Obama's doing. He has absolutely shredded the constitution, but you don't care because he's your guy. You are a dupe, a shill for a bald-faced fascist whose days as president are numbered."

You really are clueless, aren't you?

Obama threatened to veto the Defense Authorization Bill that carried this rider, but relented after congress "offered compromise language to minimize the impact on US-based citizens."

This is still bad legislation, but it meets your criterion, that it be bipartisan, which it is: "The House of Representatives endorsed an amended version of the bill Wednesday 283 to 136, and President Obama has withdrawn a veto threat. The Senate vote was 86 to 13."

Here's a complete list of those who voted for, and against it. I'm sure that it'll warm the cockles of your heart to know that your House and Senate Representatives more than likely voted for this stink-bomb of a legislation.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/230

You really are a little over-wrought, even for a dye-in-the-wool Republican.

"Morons parotting talking points should be called what they are. You really ARE a moron."

Obama expressed 'reservations' about the bill, but went ahead and signed it anyway.

In other words, Obama is telling us: “I now have the perfectly legal authority and power to detain American citizens, but trust me, I won’t”

Are you willing to trust this man? He is lying once again.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) who is the sponsor of SB 1867, has revealed it was the Obama administration itself that lobbied to remove language from the bill which would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.

Quote:

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levine, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

The Obama administration never had a problem with Section 1031 of the bill and indeed acted to ensure it applied to American citizens. Doubts over whether or not Obama would veto the bill only arose out of issues with Section 1032, which pertains to the military being required to take custody of individuals.

For that matter, more than two years ago, on May 21, 2009, in a speech at the National Archives, flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, Obama had proposed a new policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.

That the Republican House went along with this shows only that they are an unfit opposition to the Obama administration's systematic shredding of the Constitution.

One more Activist Liberal Supreme Court Justice, and there will be no more checks on his power.

Tony Rezko said..."That the Republican House went along with this shows only that they are an unfit opposition to the Obama administration's systematic shredding of the Constitution."

Give me a break!

This meme that Republicans are sacrosanct and liberals the cause of all evil, should be tiresome, even for one such as you, up to his neck in Republican propaganda.

Your beloved Republican party had no problem with the warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Where was your outrage then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

Your beloved Republican party had no problem with waterboarding detainees suspected of terrorism, supposed high-value targets, although by doing so, they violated international treaty obligations.

Further, Republicans are calling for a revision of the Constitutional provision that says if you're born here, you're automatically a citizen of this nation, angry that the children of undocumented workers may be used as anchor babies.

In addition, Republicans are seeking a Constitutional amendment against same-sex marriages, angry with the Constitutional provision of "equal protection under the law."

Not only have Republicans trampled our civil liberties, they're hoping to use our constitution to advance their own private hatred of undocumented workers and gays.

"Are you willing to trust this man? He is lying once again."

Tell me: What man do you trust? Tell me: Who in the Republican field, seeking to be your next Republican candidate for the presidency, do you trust? Tell me: What Republican hasn't lied, hasn't misled, hasn't deceived?

For my part: I trust no man. All err and fall short, but I trust Republicans least.

Unlike you, I have no problem attacking those who backed this assault on our civil liberties, regardless of party.

This is a bad piece of legislation. Admit it: Your party is as culpable in its passage as Democrats.

"One more Activist Liberal Supreme Court Justice, and there will be no more checks on his power.

"We will then have only ourselves to save us."

Man, do you have it bad: The system is the problem, not any one man. The system is corrupt, but you can't see that, can you?

Your wide-eyed hatred for Obama and your blind support for Republicanism has distorted your vision--you can't see the forest of deceit for the trees of obfuscation.

It was the Roberts court, predominantly conservative, that decided in favor of Citizens United in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, essentially saying, "the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions."

Today, Gingrich is bellyaching over the negative ad campaign that Romney's running against him, complaining about this Supreme Court decision, but falling short of condemning it.

Man do you Republicans want it both ways--top to bottom, side to side.

It appears: Your capacity for independent thought has been replaced by the Republican propaganda machine that's grinding you under the teeth of its gears.

Fear Obama all you want, it sells guns by the millions, and keeps party faithfuls like yourself from seeing the damage that your own party has done to this nation, and continues to do.

Special GOTV Show on WAEC Love 860 AM
-
Last week, Donna McLeod and Patricia Wilson-Smith had the honor of sharing
an entire hour with Luci McBath, activist and mother of slain teenager
Jordan Da...

5 months ago

Questions From A Black Woman's Journey

All of my life I observed people and often wondered why hatred between the human beings exists. As a black woman I have experienced it proliferated towards my people and me in myriad extreme and often subtle forms in which one could ever imagine toward a group of people.

One day, while meditating I asked the question why do people hate so much not knowing that this question would take me on a journey that would lead to an answer which has been one of the greatest deceptions in the history of mankind.

My journey has led me to the place that I am now, which is fighting against injustice, inequality, and enslavement of the minds of my people by the pharaohs of today.

Lord knows I am not perfect, nor do I profess to be. Neither are my people and no human being on earth is as a matter-of-fact. There are human flaws in every single race.

So, then my question is what gives one race the idea that they should have control over all others?